[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 110 (Wednesday, July 30, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H6312-H6320]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2015, 
                      BALANCED BUDGET ACT OF 1997

  Mr. SOLOMON, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged 
report (Rept. 105-218) on the resolution (H. Res. 202) waiving points 
of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 
2015) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to subsections (b)(1) and 
(c) of section 105 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
fiscal year 1998, which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered 
printed.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 202 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 202

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 2015) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to 
     subsections (b)(1) and (c) of section 105 of the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1998. All points of 
     order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read. The conference report shall be debatable 
     for ninety minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Budget.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30 
minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] pending which 
I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, concerning 
the time just yielded to the minority, all time yielded is for debate 
purposes only.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule is the standard rule for consideration of a 
conference report on reconciliation legislation. All points of order 
are waived against the bill and its consideration. The rule further 
provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.
  Finally, the rule provides 90 minutes of general debate equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority members of 
the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also point out that we have extended the debate 
time from the customary 1 hour to 90 minutes in order to maximize the 
time for the House to debate this very historic agreement. And when I 
state ``very historic agreement,'' Mr. Speaker, I want to heap praise 
on the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], chairman of the Committee on 
the Budget, who has brought to this floor something that many of us 
have worked so hard for over all these years. And it could not have 
happened without the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Kasich], certainly his committee, and the staff of the Committee on the 
Budget.
  Mr. Speaker, on July 20, 1969, Neal Armstrong and the crew of Apollo 
11 made their famous leap for mankind onto the surface of the Moon. 
Later that same year, the Federal Government recorded its first 
balanced budget in a decade, an actual budget surplus of $300 million. 
Both are milestones, Mr. Speaker, because the budget has not been 
balanced since that time back in 1969.
  In fact, in 1997, the Government spent over $6,000 for every man, 
woman, and child in America. And that is up from $500 in 1960. Each 
person's share of that national debt is more than $14,500, and that is 
up from $1,300 in 1960. This goes to show us what has happened over the 
years.
  And even worse, the Federal Government is three times larger than in 
1960, and the tax burden is unconscionable on the American people, 
particularly middle-class American people, who make up the real 
backbone of this Nation.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, this Republican Congress and President Clinton 
will stem the tide of this rising sea of red ink, and it will stop the 
growth of Government. Today, the Republican Congress will deliver 
America's working families the first balanced budget in a generation.
  Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues recall, in 1994, when the American 
people gave Republicans control of the people's House, we pledged to 
balance the budget. Today, we deliver on that promise.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. Speaker, this body has debated balanced budgets many times over 
the last few years, but today's debate is special. It represents a 
historic achievement for the future benefit of America's children, for 
their families and for the economy of this Nation. For today we do not 
just debate a balanced budget, we actually deliver one for the American 
people, what they have been asking of this body for so many years now.
  This endeavor proves that Congress, working with the administration, 
can achieve common goals without compromising fundamental principles, 
showing the American people that we can work together to solve 
problems, and the American people are applauding this every day now 
since we came to this agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, I am also proud to inform the American people that our 
democratic process, something that has been maligned in recent years, 
is working. This democratic process, even with the Congress and with a 
President of opposing parties has produced a bipartisan balanced budget 
agreement that cuts taxes for the first time in 16 years, that 
preserves Medicare and protects it from bankruptcy into the 21st 
century, that slows the growth of total Federal spending to 3 percent a 
year. That is no easy task. And that shifts power, money and influence 
away from Washington and to the people in the States and communities.
  Mr. Speaker, while this is a bipartisan agreement, it is useful to 
recognize just how far we have come. Just 4 years ago, this Congress 
under a Democrat majority passed the largest tax increase in the 
history of the United States of America. Today we cut the tax burden on 
American families for every single working American in this country.
  Just 4 years ago, Mr. Speaker, this Congress expanded new entitlement 
programs and they increased spending by tens of billions of dollars. 
What is different today? Today we slow the growth of entitlement 
spending. Today we increase budget enforcement, and today we actually 
reduce Federal spending to 18.9 percent of the Gross Domestic Product 
by the year 2002. That will be the first time since 1974, 25 years ago, 
that spending has fallen below 20 percent of the GDP.
  Mr. Speaker, just 4 years ago this Congress passed increased 
Government spending packages. Today we make the Federal Government 
smaller, allowing the free market to provide the stimulus for the 
economy to create long-term job growth. Mr. Speaker, what a difference 
a Republican Congress has made to the economy.
  Since the 1994 election, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has more 
than doubled from 3,900 points to 8,100 points, interest rates have 
dropped from 8 percent to 6 percent, and 6.4 million new jobs have been 
created. The economy is growing because taxes, spending, and the 
Government are not growing.
  But, Mr. Speaker, we are not here today to only look at the past or 
even the present but to the future of this great country. The balanced 
budget we debate here today is built on a solid foundation of 
programmatic and economic assumptions, a foundation that will generate 
benefits to American working families for years to come. This is a 
package that will keep on delivering financial relief to families and 
to businesses in the form of lower taxes, lower interest rates, higher 
job growth and a stronger economy, and we are locking it all into law 
so that it has to happen.
  For example, Mr. Speaker, in my district in upstate New York, a 
balanced budget will significantly enhance the opportunities of working 
families to care for their children and to help their communities. Alan 
Greenspan, greatly respected by both sides of the aisle,

[[Page H6313]]

Democrats and Republicans alike, and by the American people, he is the 
Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and he has testified that a balanced 
budget will lead to lower interest rates, as much as 2 percent lower on 
home mortgages, on family farms, on auto loans, on student loans. For 
the average homeowner in my district, before even calculating in the 
benefits of the cuts in the capital gains tax, a 2 percent lower 
interest rate on a home mortgage as a result of a balanced budget would 
save that family over $130 a month. That is $130 more a month to send a 
kid to college, to buy groceries or to pay for child care, which is so 
badly needed today in the pockets of the American people. It means more 
investment in the local community, a stronger local economy, and higher 
wages.
  Under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, these hardworking families 
will do more in 1 year to help the less fortunate, the young and the 
old, than this Congress could do under a banner of compassion in an 
entire decade. All these benefits result merely from Congress 
fulfilling its moral obligation to balance this budget year in and year 
out.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make one final observation. 
During this debate today, many of my friends on the other side of the 
aisle will assert that Republicans are only interested in helping the 
so-called wealthy in America. Mr. Speaker, let me state for the record 
right now that I plead guilty to that charge. I believe that a growing 
economy helps all of America's families, for it was not a Republican 
President but it was President John F. Kennedy that said ``a rising 
tide lifts all boats.''
  Furthermore, and this is so terribly important, a recent NASDAQ 
report summarized in a recent Los Angeles Times story found the 
following facts. These are facts, these are not Republican rhetoric, 
these are facts out of NASDAQ:
  Fifty-five percent of the stocks in America today are held by 
household families. Fifty-five percent. That means middle class America 
holds 55 percent of the stock today.
  Forty-seven percent of all investors are women. Fifty-five percent of 
all investors are under the age of 50. And 10 percent of all investors, 
and this is so terribly important, have started to invest within the 
last 10 years.
  These numbers do not even include all of those who have their 
pensions invested in the stock market or in mutual funds, which is the 
case for many older Americans. These so-called wealthy people are 
middle class working families that know that a balanced budget, lower 
taxes, and a smaller Government mean higher wages, more jobs, and a 
stronger economy.
  That is really what we are all here on this floor to try to do. That 
is why I urge all Members to join these American families in supporting 
the balanced budget we have here before us today. It is good for 
families, it is good for America. The future will be better because of 
what we do here today.
  And, Mr. Speaker, what we do here today is what the Republican Party 
stands for, and that is cutting taxes for all working Americans, every 
single one of them, cutting runaway entitlement spending, saving 
Medicare from bankruptcy. But most importantly, Mr. Speaker, we are 
here today balancing the budget and shrinking the size and the power of 
the Federal Government.
  Mr. Speaker, I have never been so proud to be a Republican Member of 
Congress for what we are doing here today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], the Speaker of the House.
  Mr. GINGRICH. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to my good friend from Massachusetts, 
I was concerned by his earlier concerns. I went back and checked. The 
gentleman was correct. When we initially announced that the entire bill 
was available at http://speakernews.house.gov in fact it was not all 
fully uploaded. I waited to make sure the entire bill was totally 
loaded. It is now available not just to any Member of the House, not 
just to all the congressional staffs who I hope are watching this 
debate, all of whom can access it simultaneously without having to 
xerox it, but in addition it is available to every citizen in this 
country and anyone worldwide on the Internet.
  As the gentleman knows, we are still having growing pains learning 
how to be in the information age, but we have now made this available 
to every citizen in the country. We are going to test this afternoon 
when we file the tax bill and see how long it takes to totally upload 
the tax bill for the same process. Sometime late this afternoon, every 
citizen in the country, without a lobbyist, without a trade 
association, without any payment, will have access to the tax bill in 
full. I do thank the gentleman for bringing it to our attention. We are 
still learning, but I did want to make that available.
  By the way, if I might, this is the last page. We printed it out, 
because my good friend had pointed out earlier that he could not get 
them all printed out.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I hope the Speaker will autograph it for 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to hear that from the Speaker and I am 
glad that all the citizens of America have this now. If the Republican 
Party would just allow them a few hours to read it, I think the public 
service would really be done.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the 
chairman of my committee, my dear friend, for yielding me the customary 
half-hour, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, again I want to begin by registering my frustration at 
being expected to vote on this very enormous bill that was dropped 
outside my door at 3:30 this morning. It came the same time as the 
milkman. But I am not exactly sure if my Republican colleagues drafted 
the bill we expected them to draft, and I suspect that no one else is 
sure either. This bill has come to the floor with an unprecedented 
bipartisan compromise in cooperation. It is a shame that it ended today 
with the martial law rule. Members should have the chance to carefully 
consider this bill before voting on it.
  Mr. Speaker, although this bill will balance our budget in the short 
term, I do not believe it gets us where we need to be in the long term. 
I know that quite a few of my colleagues will support this bill, and 
there are very good reasons to do so, but I at this present time 
cannot. It squeezes funding for education, training, health programs, 
and school construction, and I do not believe that it should.
  One particular problem for me, Mr. Speaker, is the hit that the 
hospitals will have to take. We in Massachusetts are very fortunate to 
have some of the world's greatest hospitals and research facilities. 
They already bear an enormous share of the financial burden of our 
health care problems, but this bill will cut Medicare spending by $115 
billion by reducing payments to these very same hospitals and the 
doctors that serve in them. It also cuts Medicaid spending by $13 
billion by reducing payments to these same hospitals that serve large 
numbers of poor people, like our Boston City Hospital. Mr. Speaker, the 
hospitals in my district are already facing enormous budget crunches. 
They cannot stand it anymore.
  This bill also cuts $4.8 billion from Federal employees' retirement 
programs over the next 5 years. Federal employees work just as hard as 
those in the private sector, but because they work in public service 
rather than the private sector, they are going to be penalized.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill also makes changes that will cut $1.8 billion 
in student loans and $1.8 billion from housing programs. It reduces 
section 8 adjustments and replaces the FHA foreclosure relief program. 
Another provision in this bill which many of my colleagues may not be 
aware of is an increase in the public debt limit to $5.95 trillion.
  Mr. Speaker, thanks to the Democrats in Congress and the Clinton 
administration, this bill is a lot better than it was. It expands 
health care for children, although not enough. It restores Supplemental 
Security Income and Medicare benefits to legal immigrants. It also 
contains funding for States to help welfare recipients find jobs. 
Again, Mr. Speaker, not enough.
  There are good reasons to support this bill, and I understand why 
many of my colleagues will do so. But as I said,

[[Page H6314]]

because of those other matters, I just cannot at this time. For the 
sake of our hospitals, for the sake of our students, for the sake of 
our housing programs, I cannot support the bill.
  I cannot support a bill that will hurt Massachusetts hospitals as 
much as this one will. I cannot support a bill that, although it 
provides much needed money to help poor children get health insurance, 
it provides the money in the form of block grants which may or may not 
be used for that purpose.
  There are some very good provisions in this bill that I very much 
support, and I congratulate my colleagues for their hard work on this 
bill. I am relieved to see many of the education issues and the food 
stamp problem have been taken care of.

                              {time}  1230

  And although I strongly suspect that this bill will pass and that our 
President will sign it, I simply, as I said, cannot support it. So I 
urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question in order to increase 
debate time to 3 hours.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], the ranking member on the Committee on the 
Budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for 
yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote for this conference report, and I am 
satisfied, and even proud, of the outcome, but I cannot vote for the 
rule in this case, and I want to explain why.
  I think it is being brought to the floor, this conference agreement, 
with unseemly haste for something so serious and so far-reaching.
  I was here until midnight last night. The Democratic staff of the 
Committee on the Budget were here until after 2:30. Most of that time 
of our staff on the Committee on the Budget was spent trying to prepare 
reports so that we could tell Members on our side from our inside 
perspective as the Committee on the Budget just what is in this 
conference agreement and what is not, what compromises have been cut, 
what deals have been done that they need to know about before they make 
their decision to vote, and it was a frustrating, sometimes fruitless, 
effort to call different places on the Hill and try to find out what 
was in the conference report because we did not have a copy of the 
conference report.
  The staff left at 2:30, the conference report was filed at 3:20 this 
morning, it was not until we got back to work this morning, just an 
hour before the House convened that we found the conference report on 
our doorstep. We finished posthaste the reports so that we could 
deliver it to Members on our side. They got it at 10 o'clock this 
morning, just before the House convened to take up this matter.
  Now there are strong reasons for having a certain delay. The rules of 
the House, the rules of the House longstanding, call for a 3-day 
layover for conference reports, 24-hour layover for rules which have 
been waived, but 3 days for a conference report, and there are good 
reasons for that. Conference reports are the last station on the track. 
We are making law. There are no more opportunities on our part to 
correct mistakes, to add something, change something, to perfect a 
piece of legislation.
  Furthermore, in the House we have what in the State legislature they 
call free conference powers virtually. As everybody knows, conference 
reports are hammered out behind closed doors. The conferees make deals, 
cut compromises, go out of scope all the time, and the rule waives any 
points of order for going out of scope. And my colleagues will find 
plenty of things in this conference report, I am sure, which are out of 
scope, one in the House bill and one in the Senate bill, that have been 
concocted by the conferees.
  That is why the longstanding rules of this House have provided 3 days 
for Members to see what is in it, sauce and blow it, weigh it and come 
to a deliberate decision as to whether or not they would support it.
  And then when the matter finally comes to the floor, there ought to 
be ample time to discuss something so far-reaching as this because this 
is not just an ordinary conference agreement, this is probably the 
single most important piece of legislation that this Congress will 
adopt in the 105th Congress. Yet we are going to take it up in an hour 
and a half. The Senate provides for 10 hours of debate, 10 hours on the 
tax reconciliation bill, 10 hours on the spending reconciliation bill. 
We have an hour and a half, and I have Members over here pulling at my 
coattails because they want to say something.
  Mr. Speaker, they want to explain why they are voting for it or why 
they are voting against it; they want to say they are in favor of this. 
That is the way the House operates. They want to have a real debate, 
and we will not be able to have it with the truncated time that has 
been allowed for this particular bill.
  This is too fast a track for legislation so serious. It should not be 
railroaded against this House. We should vote against the previous 
question.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have heard the chairman 
of the Committee on Rules quote my uncle, President Kennedy, saying 
that a rising tide lifts all boats. I would say that in this tax bill 
what we have is a tax cut that will raise the yachts in places like the 
Ocean Reef Club and other Republican strongholds of this country, but 
the people that own the little bass boats of America, the only rise 
they are going to get is when they go up on the rocks as a result of 
the cuts that are going to be created in order to pay for the wonderful 
tax cuts that are contained in this bill.
  Look, the Republicans shut down the Congress of the United States 
last year because of our protests about the level of budget cuts 
contained in terms of the Medicare budget. This bill, make no mistake, 
my colleagues, this bill contains the exact same level of Medicare cuts 
as last year's bill did. That is the hidden truth that we are not 
seeing everybody who is walking around, giving each other high fives 
and whooping and hooping down at the White House or on the floor or off 
in the Halls of the Congress saying what a wonderful thing this is. 
Everybody is all talking about how we are going to balance the budget 
of this country.
  Mr. Speaker, we are balancing the budget in the most unbalanced 
fashion one can possibly imagine, lining the pockets of the wealthiest 
Americans, pretending to working people that they are going to get a 
tax cut. They get a tax cut. Seventy-five percent of these tax benefits 
go to the top 20 percent of the American people. It is a sham.
  In order to pay for it what are we going to do? We have cut the 
housing budget by 25 percent, we are cutting the homeless budget by 25 
percent, we come back, we are going to get rid of the fuel assistance 
program. They say they are going to do so much to help out education, 
but we come back, they are going to cut almost 20 percent of the entire 
research and development accounts of the Government. They say before 
the American people this year we are going to put 6 percent more into 
the National Institutes of Health budget in order to look after women's 
health and breast cancer research, but then we are going to come back 
somehow, according to these numbers, we are going to come back and cut 
20 percent out of that same budget over the course of the next 5 years.
  This budget is a sham, and we ought to have the truth about the 
budget come out before we are forced to vote on it.
  This rule that we are going to be forced to vote on gives us 15 
minutes, 15 minutes to discuss what is in fact in this bill, and I say, 
``Take your 15 minutes and stuff it, stuff it the same place you ought 
to stuff this tax bill, stuff it the same place you ought to stuff 
these spending cuts. It's not right to force spending cuts on the 
working families in order to provide a tax cut to the rich.''
  Get rid of this tax bill.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts in his delivery.
  As my colleagues know, I was very proud to have been a John F. 
Kennedy Democrat, I was very proud of it, and I was for many years 
until the Democratic Party drifted away from the

[[Page H6315]]

principles of John F. Kennedy and Jerry Solomon, in my eyes, and that 
is why Ronald Reagan and I switched parties and became Republicans, 
because we really believe that the people back home know better than 
the people here in Washington.
  Let me just take one more second to say I cannot believe the 
gentleman would tell these people to stuff it. The gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Spratt] a very, very distinguished Member from the 
gentleman's side, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], a liberal 
Member from the gentleman's side, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Fazio], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee]; this 
reads like Who's Who in the Democratic Party, the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Payne], the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans], the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Rangel]; Mr. Speaker, Charlie Rangel signing this conference report and 
voting for this conference report. I do not think they are going to 
stuff it, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin], and on the other 
side of the aisle Senators Lautenberg, Sarbanes, Senator Moynihan from 
my State, very, very respected Democrat, and Senator Rockefeller are 
going to vote for this conference report that the gentleman says, 
``Stuff it.''
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
New York for yielding briefly.
  I would just point out that the gentleman probably had a long list of 
Democrats that voted for the 1981 budget cuts that in 1982 wished they 
had not, and probably a lot of Republicans felt the same way.
  The truth of the matter is that for the gentleman from New York to 
use President Kennedy on this House floor indicating that he would 
support the kind of cuts in terms of the programs that are necessary to 
fund a tax cut that is largely going to the wealthy is, I think, 
reshaping the history of what President Kennedy stood for when he cut 
taxes in 1960.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I not only think John 
F. Kennedy would be voting, and supporting and bringing this bill to 
the floor, I think Ted Kennedy, whose picture is here with the 
President yesterday in the New York Times applauding this legislation, 
would also be voting for it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Goss], a very distinguished member of the Committee on Rules and 
someone who has led the fight for balanced budget and fiscal 
responsibility in this House for many years.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Glens Falls, NY [Mr. 
Solomon] for yielding me the time and I share his enthusiasm. I rise in 
strong support of this appropriate rule, and I believe his observation 
about the tide is correct.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly 30 years since Congress has balanced 
the Nation's books, a generation and a half that is, of spending money 
we do not have, running up the tab on our children and our 
grandchildren, avoiding tough decisions, and Americans are tired of 
that. So today and tomorrow and the day after we are going to be 
putting in place the final details of the first real achievable 
balanced budget in 30 years. The magnitude of the change in the 
direction this legislative accomplishment represents is very, very 
great indeed. Consider that just 4 years ago the White House and 
Democratic majority here pushed through the largest tax increase, the 
largest tax increase in American history, just 4 years ago. What a 
difference 4 years and a new majority can make.
  I know some will be skeptical that may be just another promise that 
we cannot keep here, and I do not blame people who wish to withhold 
their full exuberance about this until the ink is dry and the effects 
of this historic agreement are felt across the land. But the bills we 
vote on in the coming hours and days hold more than a promise to 
balance the budget and bring about tax relief for American families. 
These bills are the implementation of the promises, and there is 
accountability built in for all of us. We cannot run, we cannot hide, 
we will be here, and we will be judged.
  As chairman of a legislative and budget process subcommittee, I want 
to take a second to point out to Members that this bill includes a 
series of clean up provisions in our budget enforcement rules, 
including extending the pay as you go and spending limit procedures. Of 
course we know additional work is needed to beef up budget enforcement, 
and budget process reform will take place in this Congress as has been 
promised.
  Mr. Speaker, for too long Americans have had to get by with less 
while the folks in Washington rolled merrily along taxing and spending 
to support the ever growing Federal Government. Look around, my 
colleagues will see it. This agreement means tax relief for 
individuals, for families with children, for students, for small 
businesses, for homeowners, for those with family farms. It brings a 
measure of fairness to the system, and it is predicated on the 
fundamental belief that Government taxes too much, not too little. We 
are getting control over spending under the discretionary side, and we 
are shrinking the size and scope of the reach of Government and, man, 
is that good news for America.
  This legislation takes the first steps toward solving the long term 
problems with Medicare, laying the groundwork for us to come together 
on a comprehensive plan to rescue the problem for coming generations. 
We are expanding choice and benefits for seniors, clamping down on 
waste, fraud and abuse, a problem whose vast proportions have made news 
in recent days; in fact are in the headlines today. And we are 
modernizing the program's payment and care delivery systems. This is a 
long overdue down payment on Medicare, and America's current and future 
seniors come out the winners.
  Mr. Speaker, there are many, many details in this plan, and I am sure 
it is still not perfect. I fully expect that the coming days will bring 
efforts by those who prefer the status quo of big government, to pick 
it apart provision by provision, and indeed we have already started to 
hear some of the clamor on the floor today. But we have done the 
unthinkable by Washington standards. We have kept our promise to the 
American taxpayers, and that is what this is about. We pledge to 
balance the budget. We are doing it. We pledge to save Medicare. We are 
doing it. And we pledge to cut taxes, and we are doing it.
  I cannot think of a single reason to delay this process. It is all 
long overdue, it is wanted by the people we represent and work for in 
this country. The time is now. Any deviation to go to motions to commit 
or other dilatory tactics are just delaying the inevitable. We are 
going to give this country the relief this country deserves and wants, 
and we are going to do it this week.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this rule and for the wonderful 
agreement that has been worked out.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the chairman in exile for yielding time to me, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, we promised and we delivered. In August 1981, President 
Reagan, when he signed the tax bill of 1981, said that we will balance 
the budget as a result of this bill by October 1, 1983. That was the 
promise. What was delivered? Four and one-half trillion dollars of new 
debt.
  Two courageous Presidents looked that debt in the eye and acted. One 
was a Republican, George Bush. In 1990, he said the deficit is a 
problem, and we must act. He was savaged, savaged by his own party and 
by the Speaker of this House.
  In 1993, a courageous President with vision said we must confront 
this deficit, for this generation and for generations yet to come. 
Almost to a person, Republicans rose and said the economy is going to 
go into the dumpster, unemployment will rise, inflation will rise, and 
deficits will rise.
  Mr. Speaker, exactly the opposite happened. Not one Republican had 
the courage or the vision to vote for the 1993 bill. But for that bill, 
we would not be here this day.

[[Page H6316]]

  Mr. Speaker, I intend to support both of these bills. They are not 
what I would have written, and perhaps what no Member individually 
would have written, but we have collectively come together and we are 
going to act. In my opinion, it will be good for people and it will be 
good for the economy, which is good for our country and for our people.
  But let there be no mistake about what the history of this fight has 
been. Bill Clinton said we needed to confront this deficit, but we 
needed to do so while investing in our people, in making sure that 
average working families were advantaged by this particular piece of 
legislation.
  We came to grips with that issue, realizing full well that there 
would be a political cost, and indeed there was in 1994. There was a 
cost, because across this land our candidates were attacked as taxers 
and spenders. But in fact, what they did was bring the deficit down for 
5 years in a row, and people say the last time it was done was 1969. 
That was, of course, following 8 years of Democratic Presidencies 
through January of 1969, Mr. Speaker; Democratic leadership, we had a 
balanced budget. And again, we are going to have a balanced budget 
because of Democratic leadership that has brought the deficit down 5 
years in a row, the first time that has happened since before the Civil 
War.
  I stand to say that I am proud of the fact that I voted for that 1993 
bill. We would not be here today but for that. I am proud of the fact 
that my President, your President, has led us to a point where we can 
balance the budget while investing in America's future and our people.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule because of 
the time constraints on debate, but I support the underlying budget 
spending bill. The reason is because today Congress is taking a major 
step in cutting the number of uninsured children.
  Over a year ago Democrats had made this a top priority, while 
Republicans were balking at finding a solution. Earlier this year, 
while Democrats were leading the charge to reduce the ranks of the 10 
million uninsured children, Republicans were questioning the need to 
help working families provide for their uninsured children.
  It was not until the President's inclusion, after Democrats' urging, 
of funding for children's health care in his initial budget that 
Republicans realized that resistance would be hopeless. Even then, 
though, they had to be dragged to the table. House Republicans pushed a 
children's health care block grant program that did not guarantee one 
penny to actually insure kids. The Congressional Budget Office 
estimated 500,000 kids would be covered and most of the $16 billion in 
funding could be drained away by the States for other purposes. 
Democrats protested the Republican plan and voted unanimously for a 
motion to recommit that would implement the proposal of our health care 
task force.
  The idea was to attach requirements that States actually use the 
money to insure kids through Medicaid or an alternative State health 
insurance plan. We insisted as Democrats that the direct services 
option, which allowed certain exemptions from using money to insure 
kids, be eliminated or severely curtailed. In addition, Democrats 
demanded an adequate benefits package for kids.
  As the negotiations over the budget continued, Democrats joined in 
the series of letters to the budget negotiators urging inclusion of an 
additional $8 billion through a cigarette tax, and provisions intended 
to insure that all the new funds for kids' health care would supplement 
and not supplant current State efforts to provide children with health 
coverage.
  In the end, Mr. Speaker, the Republicans relented and the bill before 
us today includes $24 billion, requires that kids actually be insured 
with the money, and caps the direct services option to 15 percent of 
the funds.
  The benefits package is adequate, in my opinion, and language is 
included so States have to spend at least what they do now on kids' 
health care.
  Mr. Speaker, the kids' health care plan in this bill, in my opinion, 
is a major victory for the President and congressional Democrats. 
Thanks to Democratic values and perseverance, America's children will 
be the winners of this budget agreement.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Capps].
  Mr. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the balanced 
budget legislation. When I ran for Congress, I pledged to the voters of 
my district that I would work to make the House more bipartisan and 
solution-oriented. This bill and my support of it is a reflection of 
that pledge. It is good for the residents of the central coast of 
California, it is good for our country.
  I am very happy that we have increased the amount of funding for 
children's health care to $24 billion. It is unconscionable that 
millions of American children have no health insurance. I also strongly 
support the restoration of benefits for millions of legal immigrants 
who were callously cut off from disability benefits under last year's 
welfare reform bill. Today we are finally treating these individuals 
with the dignity they deserve. I urge my colleagues to vote for this 
historic and important bill.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Tierney].
  (Mr. TIERNEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss not the bill but the rule 
before us in this particular case.
  Since I came here some 6 months ago or 7 months ago, it seems that 
all I hear from the party that said over and over again while it was in 
the minority is how it was going to do things better when it became the 
majority; in fact, all we hear now is, when they do something that is 
totally unconscionable, well, you did it, too, or you did another 
version of it.
  In fact, that is not a good enough answer for people in this country, 
and I do not think people are going to be satisfied that this 
deliberative body or this body that is supposed to be deliberative 
spent virtually no time debating one of the more important bills that 
is going to come out of legislation this year.
  The real issue is not whether we have this particular tax cut or this 
spending bill this year. There are larger issues in this country, not 
the least of which is what is happening to working families and why we 
have companies reporting 15 percent profits and 1 percent additional 
revenues, and we know the difference is because they are squeezing that 
out of American workers.
  Those American workers have less health care benefits and they have 
less pension contributions, and they are told by employers that they 
are going to have the company move to Mexico or they are going to have 
replacement workers in if they try too hard to get a raise.
  The real question is what does this tax package, what does this 
spending bill do for those American workers. And just a few minutes ago 
they said, we put it on the Internet, go read 20 inches of material and 
find the answer out for the voters. That is not appropriate. The 
American people say they want this body to deliberate. They want this 
body to know what is in that bill.
  It is a darned good thing that I am a nocturnal sort of person, 
because since I have gotten here very little that is put on the floor 
by the majority is ever put on in the light of day, and very often that 
is because I suspect most of what they are putting forward will not 
suffer well the light of day.
  In fact, this particular bill was delivered at 3:45 in the morning, 
and we have the audacity for the chairman of the Committee on Rules to 
say, like that is a great thing, like at 3:45 in the morning it was 
delivered to the minority member, ranking minority member, which gave 
us all plenty of time between 3:45 this morning and now to read 20 
inches of documents and debate it and deliver it for the American 
people.
  That is not conscionable. That is not right. This is not a good rule.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the previous speaker that he follow the 
rules of the House, and be a little careful about how he might reflect 
on the integrity or character of another Member.

[[Page H6317]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Columbus, OH 
[Ms. Deborah Pryce], who is a very valued member of the Committee on 
Rules, and someone who has been a true advocate of families and 
children in this Congress.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Rules for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my enthusiastic support for this rule 
and for the Balanced Budget Act, and to point out to the last speaker, 
and to all the body, that we are already 50 percent fairer than the 
other party was in their rules in the last time they had control of 
this House.
  What is exciting this day, Mr. Speaker, is that today Americans in 
this country, the earners, the savers, and the taxpayers, the people 
who play hard, work hard, take a few risks, strive every day to build a 
better future for their families and communities, are about to realize 
something for it.
  For years, their message to us has been crystal clear. They wanted 
Congress to cut the tax burden on Americans. They wanted us to reduce 
Government spending and Government size. They wanted us to create new 
jobs and opportunities. They wanted us to shift power and influence to 
the States and local communities, where creative local solutions could 
take the place of broad Federal mandates. Most of all, they wanted us 
to balance the budget.
  Finally, the message has sunk in. We are relearning the lessons of 
the 1980's, when we did cut taxes, when we did restrain Federal 
regulation and lower Government spending, because when we did those 
things prosperity made a huge comeback. Jobs were created, income 
started to rise, and people felt more secure about their economic 
futures.
  Today we are about to kickstart that economic revolution again. 
Imagine that, Mr. Speaker, we will actually balance the budget by the 
year 2002, the first time since 1969. That was the year I graduated 
from high school. That was the year Neal Armstrong walked on the Moon. 
That was a long time ago, Mr. Speaker.
  Not only that, we are extending the life of Medicare for 10 years. We 
are saving it from bankruptcy, and giving seniors expanded options in 
meeting their health care needs.
  At the same time, the Balanced Budget Act makes important investments 
in people, like the children's health initiative, preventive health 
programs, and the new welfare to work program to move welfare 
recipients off the public assistance rolls and into the payrolls.
  Mr. Speaker, these are just a few of the provisions in this historic 
legislation, and I commend the bipartisan negotiators who worked hard 
through many long days and nights to bring us to this conference 
agreement today.
  I especially want to recognize my colleague, the gentleman from 
Columbus, OH, Mr. John Kasich for his steadfast leadership in the fight 
to achieve a balanced budget over the years. Back in Ohio, we are so 
doggoned proud of Chairman Kasich that we could bust. Not only him, but 
all the negotiators that came up with this agreement are national 
heroes.
  Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity today to begin a new chapter in 
our Nation's history. Let us seize it. Let us grasp this once-in-a-
lifetime opportunity. Vote for this rule. Support the conference 
report.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, let us make no mistake on what we are about 
here today; the cuts we are about to adopt today, with precious little 
debate, are to finance the tax cuts of tomorrow. There is a direct and 
irrefutable relationship. So the cuts in Medicare, the cuts in 
veterans' benefits, the cuts in Social Security Administration costs, 
are to finance tax cuts tomorrow. Tomorrow perhaps we will get the 
debate on the merits of the tax cut.
  The point is, earlier the esteemed chairman of the Committee on Rules 
responded to my earlier statement saying, well, so the gentleman has 
not had time to read the bill. So there is only one copy. Now it is on 
the Internet. That is great. But he said earlier, he said, he should 
just rely on the judgment of some of his colleagues. Can he not follow 
them?

                              {time}  1300

  First off, I doubt that they have had an opportunity to read the 
entire bill. And secondly, no, I did not check my brain at the door 
when I got elected to Congress. I do not hand my voting card to anybody 
else. And to say that, well, the Democrats were abusive so we should 
not give them adequate time to read and review the bill, so we are 
going to do the same thing, I voted against those reconciliation bills 
when we had a Republican President and a Democratic Congress, and they 
kept shoving them through here and we did not have to read them.
  I even signed a pledge never to vote for another one unless we were 
given a minimum of 24 hours to read it. No one has been given 24 hours 
to read however many thousand pages there are, and I do not know, 
because there is no index and it is not numbered. But it is probably a 
couple of thousand pages. Makes amazing changes.
  I would ask the gentleman if he is particularly familiar with the 
cuts in veterans. We have an aging veterans population, and by the year 
2002 we are going to see a reduction of $4.1 billion in veterans 
benefits in the year 2002 to achieve this theoretically balanced budget 
or, if one wanted to be more cynical, to finance tax cuts for the 
wealthy, a 19-percent cut.
  How is it we are going to reduce veterans benefits with a 
dramatically aging veterans population, not just the World War II 
people and the Korean war vets, my own generation, the Vietnam 
generation, is beginning to develop aging problems. We cannot do it. It 
will not work.
  We are not going to debate those veterans provisions here on the 
floor. We are not going to debate the merits of them. We are not going 
to be given time to even examine them. It took me a while to find them 
in this pile.
  Let us talk about the Social Security administrative costs. Social 
Security is underfunded for administration, and it is paid for out of 
the trust fund. It is paid for out of the trust fund, yet we are going 
to cut Social Security administrative costs by 25 percent. So the next 
time that your mom or dad or your grandparents or the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Solomon] in a few years tries to find out what has 
happened to their Social Security check, they are going to be put on 
indefinite hold. Right now it takes 3 months on the average to process 
a claim.
  Under this legislation, it is going to take 6 months or 9 months, and 
with an aging population, who knows how bad it will get?
  These are not the places to cut the budget. They are not fair cuts. 
In fact, I do not believe these cuts will ever be made. In fact, under 
this bill the deficit gets larger next year for the first time in 5 
years. Is that not ironic? We are going to balance the Federal budget, 
but the deficit has been going down since 1992. Under this for the 
first time since 1992, the deficit goes on.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the gentleman is a 
veteran or not, but I am a veteran. I am a member of the AARP. Half of 
the AARP are made up of veterans and their families and they support 
this bill, as I do very, very strongly.
  Second, if you read the bill, spending on veterans programs will rise 
each year with outlays increasing from 39.4 billion in fiscal year 1997 
to 42.4 billion in fiscal year 2002.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], a very respected member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
the rule and of this budget. Together the budget and tax package we 
will pass this week demonstrate that hard work and able, commonsense 
leadership can balance the budget, cut taxes, and address critical 
unmet needs of our people responsibly and effectively.
  With this budget we have won a great victory for our children. Three 
months ago people said Congress would not take action on children's 
health insurance this year and we are proving them wrong today. In this 
budget agreement we set aside $24 billion for a children's health 
insurance program under a law that allows States to structure their

[[Page H6318]]

program to effectively reach the uninsured children of working parents. 
Six million kids from working families, families who need and deserve 
our help, will get that help to ensure that their children will have 
the health care that they need. We have worked long and hard, and 
millions of children will lead healthy lives as a result of our 
bipartisan efforts today. This Congress should be proud of its 
accomplishments. There is no higher priority than protecting the health 
of our children.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez].
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see so many of my 
colleagues so eager to vote on this spending bill. They are excited. 
They cannot wait. And I know what it feels like. I know what it is like 
to vote for a deficit reduction package, to vote for a bill that puts 
our fiscal house in order.
  I already cast my vote that makes a balanced budget a reality. None 
of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have ever done so. But 
I already did it. Did I sneak onto the floor last night to cast that 
vote? Or is it true what they say about Chicagoans, that we vote early 
and often?
  Mr. Speaker, I cast that vote 4 years ago in 1993. I passed and voted 
for the largest deficit reduction package in U.S. history. It was a 
package that represented fairness, demanded shared sacrifice in the 
name of common good asked those of us who were doing well to share in 
the burden. Unfortunately those principles that just 4 short years ago 
appeared to be antiquated, out of style, and politically unpopular 
today, it was a package that passed without the vote of a single 
solitary member of the Republican Party. In fact, rather than standing 
with us in 1993, they stood and they jeered and they taunted us who 
voted for it. And yet look at the facts.
  It is only thanks to what we did in 1993 that we can even consider 
this package today. You see, I hear a lot of my colleagues slapping 
each other on the back congratulating each other for doing something 
historic. Let me tell my colleagues about historic deeds and the people 
who were responsible for them, our veterans, men and women who fought 
for our country. And what does today's historic agreement mean to them? 
It means $2.7 billion in cuts to the VA medical services, $4.1 billion 
in cuts in total.
  It means under this bill a low-income veteran who took a bullet or 
two at Iwo Jima or in Vietnam has to make another sacrifice to help an 
investor who wants to take a profit on Wall Street. It tells a veteran: 
You saved us from fascism in World War II; I hope you saved up some 
money, too, to pay for your health care; you are going to need it, now 
in your seventies and eighties.
  Vote against this rule and these spending cuts.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], ranking member on the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I very badly wanted to vote for this budget 
deal. I had expected I would be able to because I thought that the 
White House would hold out long enough to have a package that would 
truly be fair to average working Americans, and I am sorry that they 
did not do that.
  I support three-quarters of this deal. I support the child tax 
credit. I was one of the original four sponsors of that proposal with 
Vice President Gore when he was then in the U.S. Senate. I am a sponsor 
of the education tax breaks because I believe in them deeply. I support 
the children's health care package. There is much that is going to be 
good in this deal. But there are certain standards that must be met 
when we are talking about distributing almost $600 billion of the 
people's money.
  First of all, most of that relief should go to middle-income working 
families, not the economic elite of this country. Second, this bill 
should be used to close rather than widen the gap in income between the 
wealthiest 2 percent of the people in this society and everybody else.
  Third, this should prevent the unraveling of Medicare and, last, it 
should not cripple the long-term investments necessary for our country 
to grow in the future.
  These bills fail those tests. The most well off 5 percent of people 
in the country, as demonstrated by this chart, the most well off 5 
percent of the people in this country, those who make $112,000 a year 
or more will gain six times as much tax relief in these bills as the 60 
percent of the American people, well over a majority, who make less 
than $37,000 a year. That is not fair.
  The wealthiest 1 percent of people in this society who make more than 
$250,000 a year will get a $16,000 tax cut under this proposal. But if 
you make under $19,000 a year, on average you will have a tax increase. 
That is not fair.
  This package is also based on the assumptions, as have been indicated 
in the past, that we will cut the Social Security administration by 25 
percent over the next 5 years. We already have a 3-month backlog now in 
handling Social Security cases.
  Do we really believe Congress is going to vote for a package that 
will extend that waiting period for a year? We are told that we are 
supposed to cut health care by 16 percent over the next 5 years. The 
bill which will come to the floor later today for this year is going to 
raise National Institutes of Health spending by 6 percent. Are we 
really going to vote to raise it this year and then to cut it by 16 
percent in future years? Come on. I cannot believe this House would be 
that dishonest.
  Are we really going to vote to cut veterans benefits by 19 percent 
over the next 5 years? I cannot believe we would be that ungrateful.
  Are we really going to vote to cut community development programs by 
30 percent? Seventy percent of the funding to the community development 
block grant program or to FEMA for emergencies? We just raised the 
budget for FEMA. Are we really going to cut it 30 percent? Come on. Get 
real.
  Are we really going to cut agriculture programs 23 percent over the 
next 5 years? Not if you come from agricultural districts, I will bet 
my colleagues. But those are the promises upon which this deficit 
reduction package is based. Those are false promises. I do not believe 
a majority of Members of either party will vote for those kinds of 
reductions when the time comes. That means the reality of this package 
in terms of the deficit is that we will be causing upward pressure, not 
downward pressure on the Federal deficit.
  I am sorry about this today. I am sorry that we do not even have the 
chance to further examine this package. It is a national disgrace to 
make decisions over the future content of the Tax Code, to make 
decisions which will determine for 5 years or more what happens to 
people's pocketbooks, what happens to their education, what happens to 
their veterans benefits, it is unconscionable that that is going to be 
made without having at least 5 hours to review what is in this package. 
Who knows what other special gimmicks are wrapped into this package. 
Vote against this rule. Vote against these bills tomorrow. You do not 
know what is in them and you will come to regret what is hidden from 
the public in all of these packages.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa 
[Mr. Ganske].
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, in 1 minute I do not have time to answer all 
of the charges by the last speaker.
  I would point out that we are dealing with a tax cut of about $90 
billion. About $70 billion of that $90 billion over the next 5 or 6 
years goes to a $500-per-child tax credit for families that earn less 
than $110,000.
  But I want to answer the charge that people have not had time to look 
through this bill. Here is the Medicare bill. It is not like this was 
just dumped on people's doorsteps last night. It is 95 to 98 percent of 
this bill that has been out there for weeks. This was what the House 
and the Senate passed. The great majority of this bill was agreed to 
weeks ago by the administration, and the House and the Senate.
  Yes, there were some differences and in the last couple weeks there 
has been ample newspaper and news coverage of how we have come to a 
resolution on some of those contentious issues. I am very interested in 
this issue. So for those last final remaining items that were in 
dispute, all we have to do is look in those sections and know what is 
in the bill. For those who are interested in housing or veterans, the 
same thing applies.

[[Page H6319]]

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on 
Rules for this time.
  I again rejoice for this debate on the House floor because once again 
it points up some very important differences. I listened with great 
interest to the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations 
essentially call this exercise, and I believe I am using his words 
accurately, ``a national disgrace.''

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it is a national disgrace to allow hard 
working people to hang onto more of their own money and send less here 
to Washington. I do not believe it is a national disgrace to allow for 
the reduction in the overall growth of spending, to make sure we save 
and preserve programs for Americans.
  That is what we are doing with this Balanced Budget Act, as we work 
to preserve Medicare into the next generation, as we preserve veterans' 
benefits, as we work to make sure that this Government takes less money 
out of the pockets of working Americans, to allow them to keep more of 
their money to save, spend and invest as they see fit.
  The fact that over 70 percent of these tax cuts go to families making 
under $75,000 is not disgraceful, it is the truth, and it is good for 
the American people.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Claremont, CA [Mr. Dreier], the vice chairman of the Committee on 
Rules, one of the most distinguished and respected Members of this 
body.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Solomon] for yielding me this time.
  It is very clear Bill Clinton will, by virtue of supporting this 
measure, be leaving one of the greatest Republican legacies in recent 
history, and we are very proud to be able to play a strong role in 
bringing that opportunity about.
  This debate that has been going on has to do with whether or not 
Members have utilized Speakernews.House.Gov. When I last stood here, I 
said that it was on line. Obviously, I was a real visionary. It was 
about to be on line, and it now is there and available.
  I did speak a little too soon, but the fact of the matter is 
virtually everyone has been following this debate. The Democratic 
Caucus and the Republican Conference have been discussing this measure 
for a long period of time. We have had hearings, we have had debates on 
these issues for years in some cases.
  I am particularly proud of several of the provisions that are 
included in this balanced budget agreement. One of them includes 
390,000 demonstration cases for medical savings accounts. As we were 
discussing this up in the Committee on Rules earlier this morning, I 
mentioned the fact our former colleague French Slaughter and I, 12 
years ago, introduced legislation called the health care savings 
account.
  It was modeled after a package put together by the Center for Policy 
Analysis in Dallas, TX, and it actually was designed to be a successor 
to Medicare, because even more than a decade ago we were looking at the 
problems of Medicare and pursuing the idea of health care savings 
accounts. So I am hoping that these 390,000 demonstration cases will be 
a real plus and a benefit as we look at baby boomers moving toward 
retirement and the health care costs for retirees.
  One of the other provisions that I think is very important is what is 
called the Disproportionate Share Hospital funding formula, known as 
DSH. It is not perfect from the perspective of a Californian, but I 
believe it goes a long way toward addressing a number of the very 
important concerns.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to point to this issue, which a number of us 
have been very sensitive to, specifically on our side of the aisle the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], the gentlewoman from Florida 
[Ms. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen], and a number of us from California, and that 
has to do with legal immigrants who could conceivably be thrown off of 
SSI. I believe as we look at the fact that a legal immigrant clearly is 
to have a sponsor, we did not want to see those who were elderly or 
infirm in any way jeopardized. This agreement addresses that.
  Most important, it gets us right on to that glidepath toward a 
balanced budget, and I believe we have a very, very good opportunity to 
do that. That is why this is a great day for both the Republican and 
the Democratic Parties and all of the American people, and I urge 
strong support of the rule and then support for this package, and 
tomorrow the greatest tax cut that we have had in 16 years. I anxiously 
look forward to supporting that.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  If the previous question is defeated, Mr. Speaker, I will offer an 
amendment to increase the debate time to 3 hours. Everybody is calling 
this measure an historic agreement. With only 90 minutes of debate, Mr. 
Speaker, there will not be much of an historical record.
  Republicans refuse to give us sufficient time to read it; they should 
at least give us time to discuss it. So I ask that my amendment be 
printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous 
question, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question so that I may offer that amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Earlier in the debate I mentioned that Ronald Reagan and this Member 
of Congress used to be John F. Kennedy Democrats until the Democrat 
Party abandoned Kennedy's principles and moved so far to the left.
  I vividly recall back in 1962 that President John F. Kennedy, in 
introducing his tax cut plan to the American people, he, President 
Kennedy, stated, and this is a quote, ``Prosperity is the real way to 
balance the budget. By lowering tax rates, by increasing jobs and 
incomes, we can expand tax revenues and finally bring our budget into 
balance.''
  President Kennedy was right then and the bills before us today are 
right also. Members should come to this floor, cast their vote to cut 
taxes, to cut spending, to balance the budget, to save Medicare and, 
most of all, to shrink the size and the power of this Federal 
Government.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Boehner]. The question is on ordering 
the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair 
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of 
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be 
taken on the question of agreeing to the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226, 
nays 197, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 343]

                               YEAS--226

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra

[[Page H6320]]


     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--197

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Blagojevich
     Bryant
     Fattah
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Gonzalez
     Houghton
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     Schiff
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1339

  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut changed her vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boehner). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________